We have an enterprise (i.e., the USPTO) that has 8,000 employees creating a product (i.e., patents) and has 300 employees destroying the same product in contested proceedings. His question: “How long can this “business model” last?” If a private sector company were engaged in the same behavior they would quickly be out of business. See Gene’s site.

I think it’s pretty funny that there’s an entire blog soley devoted to promoting More Easier to Enforce Patents All the Time! where skeptical folks like me are regularly shut down by commenters like you and quickly banned by the blog owner, yet somehow you still think it’s worth your time to come here and complain.

I must have missed that Malcolm – when were you banned over at IPWatchdog?**

Were you posting under (yet another) sockpuppet there?

Funny too – why do you complain so often of him, here?

What’s up with that?

.

** For those who are not aware of Gene’s banning policy: he does not ban those with different views and opinions, but he will ban you for false statements of law and for deceptive game playing. And that’s after a clear warning, too.

Uh, no, he svucks at this game, unless by “good” you mean “not possessing factual knowledge or acute reasoning but only Clown Boy Alinsky-like ridicule like the old, shrivelled, one-trick pony from the Soviet era ’30s that he so obviously is”.

See, anyone can play that game. Can only assume it helps if you’re perpetually nursing a hangover but will have to wait for certain others to confirm this hypothesis.

Anytime you want to have a serious discussion about the current state of computer-implemented j*nk patenting in the US, I’m happy to oblige you.

On the other hand, if you just want to screech about the imaginary horrors that will follow if we tighten up the system a few notches, or if you simply wish to pound the table and cry that “computers are machines!” then you’ll be glad to know that there’s entire blogs devoted to doing just that.

Isn’t that special for you? Enjoy. And please take Tr0llb0y with you. You two seem to enjoy each other’s company. It’s sweet.

ah. Ok, he called them death sqauds. I like the name. I mean, to be clear, I’m not exactly pro-the death squads right now nor have I ever been. They’re a band-aid for a bigger issue. Imo, the business method and software scourge should have been dealt with in the office the first time around, and have never gotten started after State Street. The PTO should have resisted then so that it doesn’t find itself in the current cluster f.

Imo, if congress wants to fix the issue then fix it. Half-measures and band-aids are not the leadership we need from them.

Besides, don’t you get it? O’Bummer has found a way to end patents without Congress’s help. He just has to stack the Fed. Cir. and the PTO with death squads, and on one will bother to file a patent as it will be worthless to enforce. I don’t think you understand how quickly this strategy could work. We could see patent filings fall off by 50% in the short term.

This is consistent with what O’Bummer said that he would figure out ways to act without Congress. So, stack the PTO patent judges and the Fed. Cir. We should be able to tell the bought off ones by their favoring the pharma patents and hurting the ee/cs patents. Tarantula does this.

“This is consistent with what O’Bummer said that he would figure out ways to act without Congress.”

Good times. There was a reason the people filed the petition about software patents on the petition site. I rather hope he did take it seriously and acts.

“We should be able to tell the bought off ones by their favoring the pharma patents and hurting the ee/cs patents. Tarantula does this.”

Oh please, nobody gives two shts about ee patents in the way you’re implying. CS ones perhaps though. More power to them. We’re here to promote the useful arts, we can safely leave the others in the dustbin of patent history.

“Well, Dopey, CS and EE patents are equivalent as we have been through many times.”

Them being equivalent in function sometimes is neither here nor there unless you’re using a bunch of functional language just to describe functionally equivalent hardware to the software. I won’t particularly miss those kinds of EE patents either. Perchance they may survive anyway, perhaps by setting forth a few different embodiments to help display good possession of their functionally defined hardware.

To be sure there is no software “equivalent” to the EE patents I work on. Nor will their ever be. Maybe there are some EE patents that suffer from the same problems that software patents do. I presume there are since that was one of the original gripes of the guy that invented the B claim. Maybe those EE patents will go down with software patents shortly with the 112 case on the indefiniteness standard. Who knows?

To be clear, you guys all the time make a big stink about EE patents getting caught up with software patents going down but you’re never very specific about what EE patents you’re talking about. I’d be interested to see about 5 examples of EE patents that will supposedly be in jeopardy. To be sure, some small minority of them will certainly bite the dust, just the same as they do in my office currently under 101 or 112. But usually they just amend and are fine at least in my office.

That would be a great start. I’m glad to hear that this potential reality is on the table and people should start getting used to the idea of drastic reductions in patent filings and grants. Fifty percent still doesn’t go far enough, of course, but like I said: it would be a start towards fixing a miserably broken, completely out-of-control patent system.

LOL – but according to Malcolm, Hal Wegner has no right to speak on anything related to the violations of the 1998 Vacancies Reform Act since Hal did not agree with what the Red Queen/Humpty Dumpty wanted on the Prometheus case.

(yes, I know that such is irrational. 6 is still trying to find the right term in his psychology book, I think)

“the reason to not put Chen before the Senate is that then she would be independent of O’Bummer”

What are you talking about dude? She’s “independent” of him now. She likewise would be after senate confirmation as a director as well though of course. And, he’d always have his “finger on her head” if that’s supposed to mean he’s able to oversee her actions and fire her as he pleases.

“and on one will bother to file a patent as it will be worthless to enforce.”

As soon as the filing rates plummet I’ll believe you when you say the sky will fall or is currently falling.

“I don’t think you understand how quickly this strategy could work.”

You seem to think that either a. people in the useful arts will be affected, at all, by obamas secrit conspiracy (which they wouldn’t be) or b. I would give two shts whether the filing rates in business methods/software plummeted (I would not).

In fact, I rather hope your conspiracy theory is correct. It’d make for an excellent story for his memoirs.

“We could see patent filings fall off by 50% in the short term.”

We could see filings fall off by 100% in the short term. You know, if a tsunami wipes the PTO (and all the satellite offices) off the face of the planet. Chances of that happening are pretty slim though.

Wake up son – all of the arguments against business methods and software patents will be used against any type of patent given that all types of patents are used in business and that software has such extensive utility (yes, 6, you are still invited to forego that utility).

“all of the arguments against business methods and software patents will be used against any type of patent ”

Setting aside your “given” because it isn’t required, sure those arguments will be used against other patents. They already are. And nobody much gives a dam, people amend a tad and go on with their getting a patent and enforcing it. It’s perfectly fine. And people making arguments ad absurdum like yourself are simply shut down. Nobody much cares.